Question about Liturgy reading---?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thejoyfulhomemaker03
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thejoyfulhomemaker03

Guest
Hello everyone… I have a question please.
Hopefully someone can help…

I am learning the Christian Prayer book Liturgy of the hours

I have it down EXCEPT one part…
On the divine Office site it shows

Concluding Prayer

O God,
who raised up Saint Mark, your Evangelist,
and endowed him with the grace to preach the Gospel,
grant, we pray, that we may so profit
from his teaching as to follow faithfully
in the footsteps of Christ.
Who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.
— Amen.

Well I do not see that in the Catholic Prayer Book unless I am on wrong page :confused:

I do realize that the Devine Office site does have
Christian Prayer:
Ordinary: 689
Proper of Saints: 1132
Psalms and canticle from Sunday, Week I, 707

I have looked every where…
Can someone lead me into the right direction please…
 
That is likely a translation difference. That’s basically the prayer on page 1134. I’d stick with the one on that page.
 
On the Divine Office site, they put the collects (closing prayer for the Office, opening prayer for Mass) from the 2011 translation of the Missal. The books for the Liturgy of the Hours have the prayers from the previous translation. If you look at them side-by-side, you’ll see that the concepts are mostly the same, just translated differently. You are allowed to use either prayer. If I have my Daily Roman Missal at hand while I’m praying the Office on a day where there’s a prayer that’s been retranslated, I’ll use the newer translation. It’s more accurate to the Latin and just sounds better most of the time.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Sometimes, though sometimes they can be a little stilted. Still, I’ll take stilted and accurate over the blandness of the older translation any day.
 
Okay thank you, that is what I was thinking but wanted to make sure…
 
Last edited:
edward_george1 said:
Sometimes, though sometimes they can be a little stilted. Still, I’ll take stilted and accurate over the blandness of the older translation any day.
Click to expand...
I don’t know. I’ve freelanced as a translator from time to time in my retirement (mostly French to English but sometimes in the other direction as well), and a good translation is one that flows, and is how someone would say it in normal speech or writing. I prefer the term “fidelity” to accuracy because accuracy often leads to very literal translations that are poor syntax. We also strive for comprehension. As someone who is fluently bilingual in French and English (and prays in Latin), I find some of the newer translations not only stilted, but difficult to comprehend.

That’s the sign of a very poor translation and why dynamic translation is usually used instead of literal translation. The idea is not only to get the concept across faithfully but also so that it can be understood.

Not to suggest that the older and blander translations were any better; they were perhaps easy to comprehend, but a bit on the “light” side when it comes to fidelity, but the new translations struck me as not only being stilted, but difficult to parse. Considering that they must be parsed by people of all education levels and reading skills levels and perhaps reading it in what is not their first language, they could have done much better while retaining fidelity to the Latin.
 
Last edited:
OraLabora said:
the new translations struck me as not only being stilted, but difficult to parse. Considering that they must be parsed by people of all education levels and reading skills levels and perhaps reading it in what is not their first language, they could have done much better while retaining fidelity to th
Click to expand...
I guess that’s one of those things that will vary from person to person. I find them beautiful, not stilted at all, just expressed in language that’s more . . . elegant, is the only word I can think of, but I don’t think it’s exactly the one I’m looking for.
 
What I like about the new translation is that we are now asking God for something and not telling him to give us something.
 
To be honest, I rarely attend Mass in English and never pray the LOTH in English, so my view is limited. I remember though how jarring the change seemed from a linguistic standpoint when I first attended Mass in the new translation (I can’t even remember when; the time lapse between hearing the old and hearing the new was very long). I usually attend a hybrid Latin-French Mass, and I pray the LOTH in Latin mostly with some French (intercessions), at least when chanting it, and in French when only reading it silently.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top